Status of Women Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[Brian Sauvé]

If we're talking about one particular file, with additional charges, I don't see that as being a burden administratively in the court system because it's one court date after another after another with numerous charges and offences.

If we're talking about the creation of new court dates for different offences, then it probably becomes an administrative burden, but responsibility for funding and resource allocation is also a provincial and territorial matter.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Thank you.

Bill C-16 expands victims' rights to information and testimonial supports. In your experience, are these procedural protections more impactful for victims' safety and co-operation than increasing maximum penalties as proposed in Bill C-225?

[Brian Sauvé]

As for the sharing of information cross-jurisdictionally, we had this discussion when there was a study about section 810 of the Criminal Code and peace bonds. That is an important improvement that we need to focus on. Should a victim choose to move from one city to another, their information moves with them, but also information about the offender is made available to them.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Nadeau, Bill C-225 would automatically classify all intimate partner murders as first degree whereas Bill C-16 limits automatic first-degree murder between intimate partners to circumstances involving coercive control. From a behavioural perspective, does tying first-degree classification to patterns of control better reflect how lethal IPV develops?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

I'll try to answer the question quickly.

Proving or having to prove all the behaviours or the [Technical difficulty—Editor] to homicide may make it possible to gather more circumstantial evidence or evidence that will come [Technical difficulty—Editor] victims, especially in cases of attempted murder, assault or harassment. The goal is really to be able to establish the context, since it's the context that is aggravating. We shouldn't limit ourselves to the partner, but we also have to protect the new partners, the children and all the people involved in the domestic and family violence context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

The interpreters were having a little bit of difficulty. Ms. Nadeau, there is a background on your video. We thought this could be problematic. So far, we seem to be getting along, but that could be problematic in the future.

Now we go to Madame Larouche.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank Ms. Nadeau for her commitment to this vital organization, À coeur d'homme, a support network for men for a violence-free society. I'll come back to her.

Mr. Sauvé, since the beginning of the meeting, we've been talking a lot about the issue of first-degree murder. I still have a small question about this and I would like some clarification.

You said yourself, at the end of your opening remarks, that you support the intent of the bill, but that we have to be careful that it doesn't penalize victims. We are gathered here in a constructive spirit, to see what we can propose as improvements to the bill.

Is there anything that could be added to that intent to reduce the risks for victims?

[Brian Sauvé]

I'm not a lawyer.

I think we need to be careful in this world, or in this space, because the world is smaller. Online harassment, online bullying and interpersonal relationships have definitely become more challenging over time. I think there is definitely a world where victims could be caught up in a self-defence situation where they might be facing challenges.

It's easy to say that they can go to court and prove their innocence using the defence of self-defence, but what about the interim? What about the timeline between that process and how their life is impacted publicly and on social media, etc.? From that perspective, I think we need to tread lightly and be careful.

As far as legislative amendments are concerned, I would turn it back to those who are experts in that field. I'll offer only that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Nadeau, I'll now ask you the same question.

I'm trying to understand the nuances between what you said in your opening remarks and the answers you gave to my colleagues. If I can summarize, you are also in favour of the principle, for first-degree murder, but you also seem to have some reservations, especially when it comes to the impact on certain victims.

What do we do then? Do we maintain the idea of first-degree murder? Are we trying to change the proposal in the bill? Can safeguards be established to reassure victims and ensure that this can't be used against them?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

As Mr. Sauvé said earlier, I would leave that to the lawyers, who are legislation experts. However, I believe that the safeguards should make it possible to ensure that the context is properly presented, so that it is understood who was the perpetrator of the violence and who was the victim, and so that it can be more easily ensured that a person is not wrongly accused.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

We will continue with the second round of questions for—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I don't know if I'm mistaken, but according to my timer, I spoke for only 3 minutes and 56 seconds. I had six minutes in total, and I used barely four minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I would say that the clerk has been looking at it.

Okay, so you have one additional minute, then.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

According to my timer, I spoke for only four minutes, and I did start it at the beginning of my turn to speak. I don't know what happened, but I should have another two minutes of speaking time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I apologize. You do. We had a mistake here with the timer.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Sauvé or Ms. Nadeau.

Are you more in favour of increasing existing penalties, or do you think that creating a separate offence would have a bigger impact than increasing penalties would?

[Brian Sauvé]

I'll go first and repeat what I said earlier.

The world has changed and I think we do need to look at how, in the online world today, intimate partner violence can be inanimate. It can be via social media and it can be character assassination through that type of thing.

How do we look at that, and are we able in the Criminal Code right now to deal with that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Nadeau, you said, among other things, that it wasn't necessary to increase the number of offences that already exist, but that monitoring should instead be improved. Do you have anything further to say on the issue of increased penalties?

[Sabrina Nadeau]

Yes, the science is really clear. That has no deterrent effect when it comes to offences being committed. The most important thing is really to ensure that there is monitoring and an offer of services on a number of levels. We must seize the opportunity whenever we have a chance to intervene with these people, both the victims, to protect them, and the perpetrators of violence.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Sauvé, you talked about the lack of resources in rural areas. In 15 seconds, can you give me a starting point? I'll come back to that in my second round.

[Brian Sauvé]

I don't think it's a matter of a lack of resources. We simply have to make sure that, if the bill is passed as is, we have enough resources and that we have a partnership between the federal government and the provinces and territories to put all this in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we really will go to Ms. Roberts for the second round of five minutes.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé, for your service. It's important to us all here today.

As we all know, intimate partner violence has increased by 76%. That is a known fact. We also know that eight in 10 women and girls are not the cause, but they suffer in these situations.

My question is very simple. In your consideration, will Bill C-225 strengthen the law to protect women so that they do not have to face the consequences?

[Brian Sauvé]

Will it become a deterrent? Possibly.

Will it strengthen some of the provisions for bail and consideration on distinct offences? I think it could, yes.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

We know that this catch-and-release situation has burdened a lot of women. A lot of women are scared. They're afraid to testify. We've heard from several witnesses that they fear for their lives and their family's lives.

How can we strengthen this bill to ensure that we protect them?